Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Archive 1

Initial Statements

Gimmetrow

• Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church/Archive_25#Case_for_there_being_either_more_than_one_official_name.2C_or_no_official_name_for_the_church

I wrote most of that, so it's largely my view. The phrase "officially known as the Catholic Church" can be read multiple ways, and some of those readings are wrong or controversial. So far the phrase is not sufficiently supported to state without qualification. The appropriate support for the unqualified statement would be an official statement of the church clearly giving its unique "official" name. That seems not to exist. The other sources given are either from church defenders trying to make a point without relevant sources themselves, or are passages said obliquely and not directly about this specific issue. Attempted rephrases have been rejected, even "in some contexts officially known as the Catholic Church", usually with reference to some claimed "consensus" for the existing phrasing.

As I've said a few times, I don't think the "official name" thing is the central issue, but rather an indirect way of addressing the central issue. The central issue seems to me that quite a few in the Church mistrust the term "Roman Catholic Church" due to a meaning attached to it by certain non-Catholics. At this point I would rather have that issue addressed in the article, and "official name" avoided entirely, unless "official name" can be referenced to genuine official sources. Gimmetrow 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow: Thank you for your response. I noticed that you used the word "claimed" when referring to whether or not there is a consensus for this particular statement. Nancy was kind enough to point out the specific discussions where several editors seem to feel a consensus was reached both with involved and outside editors (for quick reference, those were [1], [2], [3] and [4]) - in light of those discussions, do you still feel that there is a lack of general consensus on this issue?

Another question that occurred to me: Most of the prior discussion seems to be centered around whether or not "Catholic Church" can be termed an "official" name. You mentioned an additional issue that you feel is under-represented in the article: sociological or psychological responses by particular groups to the term "Roman Catholic Church". Has there been discussion specifically about the inclusion or suitability of this material? Shell ^babelfish 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

NancyHeise

• Response to Gimmetrow:

The first sentence of the article states: "Roman Catholic Church officially called the Catholic Church (note 1) is immediately followed by a note explaining use of the term. Please read note 1 here [5]

WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples recommend use of sources that are scholarly and have a reputation for fact checking.

WP:OR does not allow use of primary documents such as Gimmetrow's suggested "genuine official sources" like Lumen Gentium (even though Lumen, like all Vatican II documents, is signed by the pope as "I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church") The statement "officially called Catholic Church" can be justified for use in the lead sentence based on scholarly sources that support the statement.

Sources supporting "official name"

• :1) This [6] explanation of the Church's name is an excerpt from a book by Kenneth Whitehead called One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic published by Ignatius Press in 2000.

  A) It is the only source used by any worldwide Catholic media outlets, EWTN and Our Sunday Visitor, to explain the name of the Church (I've highlighted excerpts from this source that support "official name" here: [7] also this directly from the book [8]) Gimmetrow, Soidi and Richard keep saying that Whitehead only uses the term "proper" not "official" but if any of them would take the time to actually read the article or my linked highlights here, they would see that Whitehead uses the term "official" several times.

  B) The editorial staff of EWTN, publisher of this source, includes this academic expert [9].

  C) Whitehead's explanation of the Church's name was featured on the program Catholic Answers which this same academic oversees.

  D) WP:Reliable source examples states this about religious sources: [10] - EWTN makes use of one of these "reconized experts" who used Whitehead's book.

  E) Both Our Sunday Visitor and EWTN are very respected Catholic media outlets. EWTN is a member of SIGNIS whose board includes a member of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, [11] which is the media arm of the Roman Curia.

• :2)notable Catholic author, television and radio host Patrick Madrid[12] who was determined to be a "notable opinion on Catholic stuff" by WP:RS/noticeboard discussion here [13]
• :3)respected scholar and historian Hilaire Belloc [14]
• :4)respected Methodist theologian and professor John McClintock [15], a non-Catholic scholarly source that specifically states on page 71 "The name may be found in a number of Roman Catholic writers, and is generally used in the constitution of those states in which the Roman Catholic Church is recognized as one of the recognized or tolerated State churches. It is, however, not the official name used by the authorities of the Church who rather dislike it, and substitute for it the name 'Catholic' or 'Holy Catholic' Church. The name 'Roman Church' is applied, in the language of the Church, to the Church or diocese of the Bishop of Rome."
• :5)Both the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the New Catholic Encyclopedia which are scholarly sources tell Readers that Roman Catholic Church was a name introduced by Protestant Reformers, thus it was not a name used by the Church. It passed into legal use in England and the encyclopedia explains that. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says this under the definition of the term "Catholic": after explaing other uses of the term such as orthodoxy and such, it states "...the word Catholic is used of individual Christians insofar as they belong to the Catholic Church and are orthodox in their belief." Under the definition of "Roman Catholic" it states: "This qualification of the name Catholic seems to have been first introduced by those reformers who resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of Catholicity. In England, many of the reformers thought of themselves as catholic. ... English Catholics resented the appellation... ...The Roman Church can be used to refer ... to the local Church of Rome..." We already have included this in our note but we used the Old Catholic Encyclopedia explanation because it is readily available online.
• :6)Academic American Encyclopedia says this [16] regarding the name. The statement "claimed as its title" support "officially"
• 7)Encyclopedia Brittanica [17] "The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is the "Catholic Church".

Gimmetrow's sources

1)[18] is a book about the Lutheran faith not a scholarly work on the Catholic Church by an expert on Catholic Church. The excerpt calling the Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church is by a Lutheran theologian who is expressing his devotion to the Branch theory. This is a well known POV of Protestant belief that we have covered in our note. We have no way of knowing whether the reference to official name from this non-Catholic Church expert is referring to the legal use of the name in England that we have already covered. Also, the writer makes claims on the same page that the Catholic Church today is not part of the Catholic Church before the Council of Trent, obviously a fringe POV theory, the kind that WP:Fringe asks us to avoid. This is not a reliable source for us to use for this issue and the author does not meet the requirements set out by WP:Reliable source examples with regard to religious sources.

2)[19] is a snippet view that does not allow us to view the context within which this author is making a statement where we can not even see the complete sentence. In addition, here is an unflattering book review by Saturday Review of Literature of this source [20] see page 173. This is not a reliable source as this review states that the book contains inaccuracies.

3)There is no third or more sources offered by Gimmetrow even though he lists more in his argument linked above because he offers no links to scholarly or any sources to support his listed views.NancyHeise ^talk 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

NancyHeise: I understand the instinct to respond when you feel someone is incorrect, but its important that starting out, everyone has a chance to state their position and even more importantly, give their ideas for how this dispute could be resolved. We may get into these detailed discussions later, but for now, lets stay away from debating each others points. Aside from that, I believe I can understand your feelings on the issue from your response. Did you have any thoughts on what we could do to resolve this dispute? Shell ^babelfish 07:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Shell, I tried agreeing with Gimmetrow, against consensus of editors, during the last FAC but I was shut out by consensus against his position. I thought a way out could be just to say "Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church" and tried numerous other diversions away from "official" but so many people insisted on "official" it was clear that they agreed the sources supported the term. (See [21], [22], [23] which was followed by this final vote after more discussion[24] where I agreed not to vote until everyone else had expressed their opinion) These people are not even Catholic and several of them were even Anglicans. So these were not a bunch of Catholics voicing their opinions and they were all very veteran editors except for Gimmetrow's side which consisted of he and Soidi. They are listed in the consensus vote linked on the main page of this RFM. I do not see a way out except to agree to go with consensus which is what I have done but Gimmetrow has not. NancyHeise ^talk 07:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight Nancy (hope you don't mind shortening your name, if so, please let me know); I believe I read all of archive 22 (and a bit more) but I'm going to take a look through that again just to be sure I haven't missed anything pertinent. Shell ^babelfish 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Soidi

The sources cited in favour of the present text argue that "Catholic Church" is the official name of the Church, but they cite no actual decision of the Church to choose any particular name as its official name. Instead, they argue that, because the name "Catholic Church" is used in official documents of the Church, this is the Church's official name. Their argument shows only that "Catholic Church" is an official name, not that it is the official name, especially since other names also are used in official documents of the Church. These other names include, but are not limited to, "Roman Catholic Church". It is rather disingenuous to head one of the sections above as "Sources supporting 'official name'": if the article spoke of "Catholic Church" merely as "an official name" of the Church, there would be no problem, but that is not what the article is being made to say.

The reliability of some of the statements made by these sources is highly questionable. The claim that "the term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself" (Whitehead) is easily shown to be false (dozens of examples have been cited in the discussion), as can the claim that the Church never uses "Roman Church" to refer to anything but the Diocese of Rome. The article by Herbert Thurston in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which Nancy refers to, states that "Ecclesia catholica romana" and "Église catholique romaine" were in use in Latin and the Romance languages before the earliest known use of "Roman Catholic Church" in English. There is even evidence (see Denzinger 423) that the Church as a whole, not just the Diocese of Rome, was called Roman as far back as 1208, and the Second Vatican Council also said that the Church (the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him) is called Roman (Lumen gentium, chapter I, supplementary note 13*).

Conclusion: There is a view that "Catholic Church" is the Church's official name. This view, namely that the Church has adopted one official name, and that this one official name is "Catholic Church", has not been demonstrated to have a truly solid base. More important for Wikipedia, it is not the only view supported by serious sources, and should not be presented as if it were. Soidi (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you have a suggestion for how the wording of the sentence could be changed to resolve your concerns? For example, do you feel it is appropriate to give alternate names (i.e. "also known as") so long as qualifications such as "officially" or "formally" are avoided? Shell ^babelfish 11:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. That would be simplest. "Also known as" or variants of this expression were what was used at the start of this article until 20 April 2008, when Deusveritasest removed the phrase, which at that time had become "often referred to as the Catholic Church" (not the best expression, in my opinion), and Xandar reacted by going to the other extreme and, with the perhaps somewhat misleading edit summary "restored 'Catholic Church' information", inserted the quite different phrase "officially known as the Catholic Church". When someone restored the previous text ("often referred to as"), the same editor put back his own invention, claiming in his edit summary that he had "restored agreed wording for name"! Soidi (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem we have persistently had with Soidi is that he is making personal judgements about primary documents which is WP:OR. No secondary source, especially no scholarly source says what he is saying about the Church's name as he has written it above. Not even his link to Catholic Encyclopedia. In addition, he flatly rejects those sources that do meet WP:RS and are scholarly. Siding with Soidi creates the scenario where we are required to toss what actual scholars are saying about the Church's name in favor of an individual Wikipedian's personal interpretation. The decision to toss "also known as" was due to the fact that we have scholarly sources that claim the Church has one official name that is used by the Church, the other is not. NancyHeise ^talk 16:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They are not scholarly studies. Not one of them quotes a Church source that says anything about an official name. And no scholarly study would make such clearly contrary-to-fact statements as are found in Whitehead. Take another example: he writes that the English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council "succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term (Roman Catholic) officially herself". This statement by Whitehead is false: the Popes, the Roman Curia, the Bishops of the Church do repeatedly use the term "Roman Catholic" in their official documents and declarations.

Gimmetrow's two sources that go so far as to say that "Roman Catholic Church" is the official name (something with which I personally do not agree) have as much claim as these to be considered scholarly studies. Nancy's personal judgement is to declare these two writers prejudiced; the same accusation could be made about Whitehead. Soidi (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Richardshusr

I tend to side with Gimmetrow and Soidi on much of the content issue although I have tried to distance myself from the often incendiary and uncivil tone used in this debate. My position is that, personally, I believe the proper name (note the deliberate choice of "proper" here instead of "official") for the church is "the Catholic Church" and that this is in fact the most frequently used official name of the church (to the extent that this name is used predominantly in official contexts). I also believe that there is a campaign ("in the real world") by people like Whitehead and Church officials to make this the only official name of the church and to eliminate the use of "Roman Catholic Church" due to sectarian reasons that have been well-discussed and well-documented.

However, but I do not believe that the sources support the idea that this is currently "the official name" of the church in the sense of one that has been promulgated in an unquestionably official manner. Instead, I believe (as do Gimmetrow and Soidi) that there are multiple "official names" of the church and that "Roman Catholic Church" and "Roman Church" are among them although far less frequently used than "Catholic Church".

Whitehead doesn't actually say that it is the official name (he uses the word "proper") although he does say that the Catholic Church has called itself such from the earliest recorded instances. No one disputes this claim. Patrick Madrid does make the assertion that it is the official name and no one has brought up sources to say that it is not. If we were to use the rule that one source beats no sources, then "the official name" would win. However, common sense requires us to evaluate the source and the nature of the dispute and I do not favor deciding this question solely on the statement of Madrid.

Above statement struck after being reminded on my Talk Page by NancyHeise that there are other sources. Here is my assessment of what those sources say

1. I have now re-read the Whitehead article and, well..., he doesn't explicitly say that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church but I do start to think that this is hair-splitting. He says "proper" but he does really argue that the name of the church is "the Catholic Church" and he is arguing polemically against "Roman Catholic Church".
2. Hillaire Belloc does not really say that the official name of the church is "the Catholic Church". He's not really wrapped up in discussing the name of the church but something else and so this is not really a good citation in this regard.
3. I'd seen the McClintock quote before and forgotten about it. Like Whitehead, he argues against "Roman Catholic Church" but he says that Church officials substitute "Catholic Church" or "Holy Catholic Church" for "Roman Catholic Church".

My position remains that I'm for putting all of this in Note 1. I just don't think the "officially known as the Catholic Church" conveys the full breadth of our discussions on this subject.

Why do we conveniently drop McClintock's mention of "Holy Catholic Church" from the lead?

--Richard (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that many churches and dioceses/archdioceses in the United States use the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" in official contexts such as church publications and websites. It's also clear that the official directory of dioceses always uses "Catholic dioceses".

It seems to me that a reader of this article could easily be confused by the fact that this article is titled "Roman Catholic Church" and then in some sort of logical jiu-jitsu, the article informs the reader that the official name of the church is "the Catholic Church" without providing (in my opinion) adequate explanation of what the distinction is.

In order to resolve this potential confusion, I have tried to campaign for laying out this apparent discrepancy in "Note 1", taking the approach that it is better to inform the reader of the issues involved and let him/her decide for himself rather than to attempt to resolve this by making a decision and hiding from the reader the other alternative perspectives and sources.

--Richard (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My view on how to resolve the current impasse... Well, I'm not convinced that there is a path to compromise considering the passionate opinions on both sides but I will state my view nonetheless. I am not quite as passionate about this issue as Gimmetrow, Soidi et al. However, I do think they have made valid points regarding the use of "Roman Catholic Church" and "Roman Church" in official contexts and documents that have been given short shrift by the majority faction. I would probably go along with most compromises that would satisfy Gimmtrow, Soidi, et al.

I do want to establish that there are certain locutions that I think are unacceptable. These are "also known as the Catholic Church", "also called the Catholic Church", etc. All these suggest that the Catholic Church is properly called "the Roman Catholic Church" but is "also known as" or "also called" the Catholic Church. This inverts the true relationship of the two phrases and thus should not be contemplated.

--Richard (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "which usually calls itself the Catholic Church"? Or "refers to itself as"? Or "prefers to be called"? Or something similar? Defteri (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes... I'm fine with all of those. I was specifically ruling out "the word 'also'" especially when used in the phrase "also known as" as these tend to suggest that the official or preferred name is "Roman Catholic Church" and "Catholic Church" is some sort of abbreviation.

--Richard (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible solution? Support. Soidi (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible solution - Could it be this easy? Support. -- Secisek (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds accurate, would we include the note with it? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, heh... I certainly hope it IS this easy. However, I would like to point out that, IMHO, I am the moderate in this debate. The parties that need to agree are Soidi & Gimmetrow on one side and NancyHeise and Xandar on the other side. It is promising that Soidi supports the locutions proposed by Defteri. Let us see if the others also agree... (And yes, I think we still need a note) --Richard (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is to be a note, it will have to be neutrally expressed. Perhaps we don't really need one. Defteri (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Kraftlos

I was sort of drawn in during the RFC a while back and worked with this for about a month. I think the only way we are going to solve this is through a compromise, that means both sides are going to have to accept something that they see as less-than-perfect. I think that Nancy is correct in stating that we cannot do original synthesis from the primary documents, so the sources included on Note 1 are the best way to handle this as we are going to a secondary source that (as she has demonstrated) is well respected.

I know that there is some different connotations for the “Roman Catholic” prefix; however, in my experience, this is the name I hear most often in the U.S., given that a very large portion of English-speaking internet users come from the U.S., it’s not unreasonable to make sure that name is there so they can identify the subject; for the people that are familiar with the other name, we have that up there too. I doubt the average reader is coming to the article to find out what the official name is; they’re probably here to read the article, not the first sentence. The goal of this first sentence is to identify the subject so the average reader knows what the article is; if someone is interested in finding the official name, then they should be looking at academic and church sources, not Wikipedia.

Essentially what I think it going to have to happen is we're going to have to use a neutral phrase like The Roman Catholic Church or the Catholic Church (note 1)" or slightly less neutral but still not pushing POV "The Roman Catholic Church, properly known as the Catholic Church". Quite simply, both sides need to accept that they’re not going to see their ideal phrase here, it’s going to have to be a compromise or we’re going to be fighting over this indefinitely. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Majoreditor

Like Richard, I find that the most commonly used term for the entity is "Catholic Church" rather than "Roman Catholic Church". I would point out that the term "Roman Catholic Church" is often used to specify the Western Rite within the Catholic Church (in contrast to its Eastern components such as the Maronite Catholic Church, Melkite Catholic Church, etc. which are in communion with Roman Catholicism and, together with Roman Catholicism, form the Catholic Church.) As such, the article's current name is misleading.

A solution would be to rename the article "Catholic Church". Majoreditor (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)